Seeking actual numbers -

[TBF]

I don't often wander into GD: P, but thought the policy-oriented folks may be in here and have the info that would make the deal clearer.

I've seen the "fact sheet" from the white house and text for the bill (which gives appropriations numbers but I don't know how to compare it to what we currently have).

Is there a cheat sheet floating around anywhere that says "Medicare cut 5%" or whatever? I'm sure it is more complicated than that - but I am looking for the info in a simple form.

For example, it looks like Pell grants are still funded, but graduate school education is not. Will it be the same number of Pell grants or has that been cut to some degree?

It is hard to make statements about the "deal" without really knowing what is in it.

Thanks in advance.

[TBF]

1. Wow, absolutely no responses and I've given this a few hours.

What is it that folks are trying to hide here?

[TBF]

2. And still no facts. Way to go Team Obama. nt

[Whisp]

3. here's something from 'team Obama'

*farts

[TBF]

6. Well that is about what I'd expect. nt

[Phx_Dem]

4. Medicare is not being cut by 5%. It's a 2% cut to Medicare PROVIDERS.

[TBF]

5. That is why I am asking for facts (with cites to back them up) -

I'd like to see what is actually being cut (and alternatively what is being left alone). For instance I heard Social Security was "not touched". Is that true?

[Zenlitened]

7. Here is a link to the complete bill, in PDF form:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/228727/debt-bill.pdf

It's 74 pages, double-spaced with wide margins, so not as daunting a read as it might seem. Although the usual, inevitable Congress-speak is there in all its glory. :)

I'll look for a good, condensed sort of cheat-sheet version and post a link if I can

[TBF]

12. Thanks -

yes, I've tried to read that but it seems to be mostly appropriations (which is hard to read as a non-lawyer without knowing what the appropriations were in the last bill!). Thank you for the Nate Silver blog before, that did help a bit.

[CakeGrrl]

8. Take a look at some of this

If you're REALLY interested in information, are you willing to hear a different perspective other than the outraged choir?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x730516

I know there's some snark in there that could offend your sensibilities, seeing as you're slumming in GD: P, but given the tone of your OP, one would hope you could handle it.

:hi:

[TBF]

10. Thanks -

yes, I did look at that article, and also have made my way through some of the text of the act. I really need to print it and read it carefully. What I'm seeing is the appropriations going forward, correct? As a non-lawyer, and a non-policy person (ie Average American), it is hard to know what to think of this.

I hear Bernie Sanders saying it is a bad deal, and Krugman saying it is a bad deal. I want to know how it effects me personally (this is what every voter is going to want to know).

I can understand what I've seen about Medicare. 2% cut to facilities (where my elderly inlaws live) mean that there may well be lay-offs, or sub-standard care. I can understand that.

If Pell Grants remained untouched (which may be the case from what I've seen), but loans to graduate students have been cancelled, that is something I (and others) can understand.

That is why I asked for sort of a "cheat sheet" - how this affects middle America.

[Zenlitened]

9. P.S. Here is a link to what, IMO, is a pretty even-handed analysis:

Nate Silver at his NYT blog:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/the-fine-print-on-the-debt-deal/?hp

The Fine Print on the Debt Deal
By NATE SILVER

If Democrats read the fine print on the debt deal struck by President Obama and Congressional leaders, they’ll find that it’s a little better than it appears at first glance.

That’s not to say that the deal is a good one for them. It concedes a lot to Republicans, and Democrats may be wondering why any of this was necessary in the first place. But the good news, relatively speaking, has to do with the timing and structure of the spending cuts contained in the deal.

(snip)

One narrow way to read the deal is that both sides got what they wanted. President Obama got an assurance that the debt ceiling will be raised through the end of his first term (although the increase will take place in stages). Republicans achieved their dual goals of avoiding tax increases and getting a dollar-for-dollar increase in spending cuts to match the amount by which the debt limit will be raised.

The problem with that interpretation, of course, is that the Republicans’ goals were much more ambitious — and they were able to achieve them all the same. That’s why by any reasonable standard, this deal was a “win” for Republicans on the policy merits.

Much more detail at link:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/the-fine-print-on-the-debt-deal/?hp


edit to correct name of blog

[TBF]

11. Yes, this is better -

When reading this blog I clicked through to the WSJ article it references. This paragraph caught my eye:

"In Securing this Bipartisan Deal, the President Rejected Proposals that Would Have Placed the Sole Burden of Deficit Reduction on Low-Income or Middle-Class Families: The President stood firmly against proposals that would have placed the sole burden of deficit reduction on lower-income and middle-class families. This includes not only proposals in the House Republican Budget that would have undermined the core commitments of Medicare to our seniors and forced tens of millions of low-income Americans to go without health insurance, but also enforcement mechanisms that would have forced automatic cuts to low-income programs. The enforcement mechanism in the deal exempts Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare benefits, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement."

I'm not quite sure how this works, because I read elsewhere that Medicare was cut 2%, but it says the enforcement mechanism exempts these particular programs. So I'm curious to learn more about that.

[Zenlitened]

13. Medicare cuts would involve payments to providers, not beneficiaries.

Some worry that providers will pass the pain along to patients.

[TBF]

14. OK, that makes sense, thanks. So people won't see a change to their Medicare in their monthly

deductions or anything like that. But if someone checks into assisted living there could be changes in treatment there because they're forcing cuts in that area. Well, that is not great news but at least I understand what is going on in that area now.

The white house should prepare a similar "cheat sheet" to let everyone know where these cuts are in practical terms. That way we can all understand what the trade offs were.